In recent years, popular books like the Harry Potter series, The Giver, and To Kill a Mockingbird have recently been challenged of banning. Some people propose the idea to ban books that contain inappropriate content. They claim that these books should not be accessible to students and youth. Despite, the “inappropriate” content the government should not restrict the freedom of its citizens. Banned books should be accessible to students. Banned books are engaging, they convey the value of existence in a society, and they present a meaningful comprehension of real life issues that students can relate to. Authorities should not be allowed to limit our freedom. Censoring books means violating First Amendment. Authorities should not ban books …show more content…
Students should not have access to books that promote inappropriate language. But, on the other hand, according to the article, Censorship: Who Should Decide What Young People Read? It states how when kids are facing issues, books relating to the issue help them better understand their own personal life. In addition, censored books are mostly engaging books. Banned books usually show issues that people can relate to. Authorities should not have the rights to restrict the freedom of its citizens. According to President Eisenhower, he believed that it was a man’s job to decide the position to take on what he should or should not read not the government’s job. In conclusion, banned books should be accessible to students. Many people disagree, they advise the idea of banning the books. Yet, these books don’t show offensive and inappropriate content they convey something that has importance to life. Censored books are also, literature classics but, its just presented differently. These books are more in depth and more difficult to determine the author’s purpose of writing the books. Banning books violates our civil rights and takes away knowledge from kids on the problems we still face